Saudi religous leader calls for the gang rape of Syrian women

A prominent Saudi cleric has issued a fatwa (a religious ordinance) that calls for the gang rape of Syrian women. Expressing frustration that the “warriors of Islam” fighting in Syria may be getting weary for the lack of sexual pleasure, the religious leader issued a decree that promotes hours-long “intercourse marriages.”

The cleric, Muhammed al-Arifi, who is a leading jihadist religious figure, made it clear that his edict called for the gang rape of Syrian women and girls. He specified that the “intercourse marriages” last only a few hours “in order to give each fighter a turn.” As to who is an eligible bride, the cleric approves any girls or women over the age of 14 who are widowed or divorced. Yes, you read that right. Any girls over the age of 14.

Muhammed al-Arifi has come under fire for advocating for violence against women in the past. A few weeks ago, he was banned from entering Switzerland or participating in the Swiss Central Islamic Council .

Saudi Arabia has been influencing and funding the Syrian revolution for nearly a year now—although this fatwa is the first explicit time that rape as a tool of war has been proposed as part of the opposition’s military strategy. Since at least April 2, 2012, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been paying salaries to the Syrian forces fighting against President Bashar al-Assad and his army. Saudi Arabia has also been sending weapons, including portable anti-aircraft missiles, to the Free Syrian Army.

5. You obviously haven't dealt with a female dog in heat

91. Actually the Dogs seem quite tame in their instinctual responses

After watching a few nature type documentaries over New Years Day, complete genocide of one side of the sexual gender is a possibility and happens. We should all get a grip on ourselves and realize we are not that far removed from where we emerged from.

14. I don't believe you can point to any religious leaders or other public figures calling for gang rape

...here in the US. If someone were to make such a pronouncement in the US, we'd have his head on a platter within a single news cycle. So no, as much as we still need to progress with women's rights in this country, there's absolutely no sane equivalency that can be made between Saudi Arabia and the US when it comes to the rights of women.

16. well, there you go. everything... is all better.

you THINK it is ONLY this man calling for the gang rape of women in a country cause the men are oh so horney and arent fighting hard enough? think it might be the gang rape to death in india and all the other gang rapes. solution? tell the girls no skirts or cell phones. that will show the damn rapists. oh... and how about a gang rape on FB. and the men tell me on du not to be concerned. really, just gang rape simulation for men to get off on. oh, and the men raping are fuzzed out and there is not one damn thing to indicate it is simulated for mens entertainment.... unless after 8 minutes it is the GIRL curling up in fetal position.....

30. You're difficult to communicate with

No, I don't believe gang rape is limited to Saudi Arabia. It even happens here in the US, but it does not happen under the auspices of any governmental or religious organization I know of, because if it did, we would not stand for it. In the US, gang rape is committed by criminals, and when we find them, we put them in prison where they belong. We do not celebrate these criminals; we jail them. In the US, we don't call for women to give up cell phones or wear burquas as a way to prevent rape.

The India gang rape happened in.....wait for it.......India (not a part of the United States).

There are no public figures in the United States calling for the gang rape of women. If you have information to indicate otherwise, you'd do well to post it.

32. we celebrate gang rape and rape as we are appalled. TOO big of an issue to dismiss with oh, well,

religion. saudi arabia.

the vast majority of rape is not reported. the vast majority of rape reported are not prosecuted. the vast majority of rape prosecuted are not convicted. and the vast of the majority convicted do not spend time in jail, or not a significant amount of time.

37. believe me, I've tried to make sense of your words, and I'm having a hard time

You tried to make an equivalency between the US and Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis gang rape. Now you're saying you didn't say that, but that whatever it was you did say was ignored, and now we might have to "own it" (which sounds to me like more blaming the US for the ravings of a psychotic Saudi cleric, but again, I really cannot understand you). The only part of your statement I "ignored" was the thing about Facebook, because I have no idea what you're talking about--presumably some sort of gang rape that was live-broadcast on Facebook.

Just exactly what is the point that you've repeatedly made and will continue to make that is nonetheless ignored? Please be specific and clear, as I would like to be able to understand what you're talking about. Thank you.

39. i did not say it is "just as bad". i said... it is not only about saudi arabia.

this is a much BIGGER issue than saudi arabia. religion.

and i gave you many instances WHY it is not all about saudi arabia. and we should not feel all comfortable that it is the horrible religious all the way across the world. that is just simply NOT good enough.

42. OK, I get that. Thanks for the clarification.

I really am glad you clarified that, because I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Now that I know with certainty, I'll agree with you (as I did in my first post) that we still have a long way to go in this country. I'll also explicitly state that I'm glad we're nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries run by fundamentalist religious types.

73. i get the significance. nt

44. Hey!! Look over there!!!

Some (brown-skinned) psycho is talking crazy shit about women and their role in society. Thank God that shit doesn't happen over here and psycho misogynists like Larry Flynt are thoroughly and righteously demonized and cast out of our oh-so-egalitarian society.

Maybe do a little internetting and look up Jake Baker in Ann Arbor (or countless other cases) and see just how harshly western society condemns sexual violence toward women.

whether the woman wants to be "married" or not. I guess a woman can be "married" and "remarried" multiple times a day. I'm sure Syrian and Muslim society will look with kindness and understanding upon these "frequently married" women, too.

49. You don't need to be factually incorrect to be demeaning,

and my analogy is not incorrect. "I cannot believe how barbaric BLACKS (not people) can be" is not a statement that only blacks can be barbaric, but a statement (like yours) highlighting the capacity of a group to be barbaric. It's not insulting by virtue of being a false statement, but because it implies that, from birth, I am in a morally inferior class. It says that, no matter what I do individually, you are going to place me in this inferior group and associate me with the worst acts you can find, solely because I'm a man.

70. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, anyway?

All I see it doing is creating a defensive reaction from men who feel you are trying to lump all of us in with a monstrous imam. It doesn't create additional awareness of anything besides the hatred that's eating you up, it doesn't protect Syrian women, it doesn't bring condemnation on the imam...it just makes you look petty and spiteful.

71. by my using the word man/men discussing a man calling for men to rape, WHY would you

feel defensive?

i would like you to be honest.

it doesnt hurt. as a matter of fact, it is way less painful to be honest than to try and defend THIS, that is being defended by a couple men, in the most absurd manner, talking about being demeaned, because i insist, no, demand the right to say men, when talking about MEN.

76. Oh, you've got the right, no doubt about that.

But the thing is that your "not people" post doesn't appear to have any purpose other than expressing hatred for men and making you look like a fool. It doesn't communicate anything new. You can say "it's factually accurate, so it can't be wrong," but that just falls flat to me. It's like commenting on the Catholic church abuse scandals and focusing with laser intensity on the fact that it's almost(?) entirely homosexual abuse. Does that make it worthwhile to say "we need to stop these GAYS from abusing children?" Would you expect a gay person to smile and go along with that? I hope not, because a statement like that implies that gays (ALL GAYS) are an inferior class that needs to be controlled and restrained by their betters.

And no, you don't need to say "ALL MEN" or "ALL GAYS" to make these insulting suggestions. You might as well say "well, you know, when I said Jews are the problem with America, I didn't mean you, SPECIFICALLY."

And no, being annoyed with your posts does not equal support for gang rape. It is absurd of you to claim that there's any connection at all between approval of your posts and approval of gang rape. Words on an internet forum are nothing compared to the atrocity of sexual violence by soldiers.

Christ, I'll have to amend that, too, won't I, or else you'll scream that I condone sexual violence by anybody who isn't a soldier. Sexual violence is an outrage, period. Organized, deliberate sexual violence by soldiers is a particularly heinous and brutal crime against a nation.

79. lets look at something that is exclusively women. that was a hard one to come up with because as

human we are about equal, especially now that women have freedom and independence. so about the only proper example i could come up with is getting preg/having a baby.

gang rape is about exclusively men. i have never heard of women gang raping men. rape, which is generally statutory has women at 1.27% i believe is the number i read so men with rape is 98%. rape is almost always men.

so back to the example with women. we say... women have babies.

we do not say people have babies.

anyone would call it out and say.... people dont have babies, women do.

it does not mean EVERY woman has babies. for all kinds of reasons.

****

NO WHERE did i say or even suggest that you " support for gang rape". made up, do NOT give that to me anymore than saying i suggest ALL men gang rape. you all have got to argue on what is actually said instead of making up arguments i did not say. that is wrong.

83. Post 65,

where you accuse Last Stand of letting his sensitivity outweigh the crime of rape and of wavering in his belief that gang rape is bad, both of which are false, bigoted accusations.

Like I said before, you don't need to specifically say the words "all" or "every" to insinuate that you believe a particular class is inferior. Would you insist on referring to "GAYS, not people" perpetrating the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? Do you think this would not be an aggressive and hurtful thing to say?

85. he said it was insensitive i use men and not people. when talking about declaring gang rape on women

i felt it beyond odd that we are concerned with men sensitivity in the light of gang rape of women. you may disagree. that is allowed. but, i hold to the absurd saying it is insensitive to men, when talking about gang raping women.

along with saying it is "demeaning" to men. when talking gang rape of women.

just a little quirk i have.

the poster says, that the way i talk about this issue effects mens support of the issue. hence me question or even pleading with men, that though you may not be comfortable with how i discuss the gang rape of women, i hope it does not effect a mans support in womens right. again, i see nothing wrong with that comment.

your last argument is made up, giving me something i have not said. i will not participate in that. you can either argue what i say, and i will respond. or make up bullhsit argument i will not even bother with because of its absurdity.

87. You seem to be hung up

on painting men as enemies. I didn't rape any Syrian women. I didn't tell anybody to. It is not more acceptable to demean me in a conversation about crimes by men any more than it is acceptable to demean gays in a conversation about crimes by gays, or to demean Muslims in a conversation about crimes by Muslims. You do not have a pass to make bigoted statements, just because the conversation is about crimes by some of the targets of your bigotry.

63. Thank you.

86. OK, let's try your position this way:

Let's say someone posts a link to some unbelievably outrageous and heinous pronouncement by a woman about harming or doing violence to men (Valerie Solinas' "SCUM Manifesto" leaps immediately to mind, and I realize that is decades old, but I've no doubt a couple of minutes goolgling the interwebs could find more contemporary examples, an activity that I am not in the least bit interested in doing).

In response to such ugliness, someone comments, "I cannot believe how barbaric people can be."

Shortly thereafter, a second commenter responds, "WOMEN. Not people. WOMEN."

When called out on such a bigoted and hurtful response (because it lumps all women in with the ugly and hurtful comments of just a few), the second commenter replies, "But it is just women making these comments. Show me where I'm factually incorrect."

88. no. because women are not exclusively committing violence on men. as a matter of fact, that was a

written piece of fiction that did not actually happen. nothing came out of it. so there was NO barbaric behavior being committed. if you claimed people WRITE the most barbaric things and then proceeded to say women, not people. that would not be correct either because both men and women write barbaric stuff.

if you were to say people have babies. women, not people, women have babies. then i would have to agree.

if you are to say people gang rape. men, not people, men gang rape. then i would have to agree.

90. Like someone said upthread, I'm sorry you are unable to see the divisiveness and demeaning nature

of your comment, whether factually correct or not.

As someone else said (and I say this as a woman), you do the cause of women's rights no favors with such posts, which, whether factually correct or not, come across to most reasonable minds (in my judgment) as having just a strident anti-male at any cost point of view.

94. i am sorry that fact and reality and common sense gets in the way how others want me to post

on this issue.

truly.

as i said in a post. honesty. i think what we have to do is discuss these issues honestly. we were not doing that and i called it out. i do not think being honest is painful. i think it is more painful when we try to defend a non truth.

i think it allows problems to percolate and stream roll ahead.

what would happen if a man read about gang rape and did not take ownership of it, but was merely outraged by it. that really is not so hard.

or, it should not be.

to not take ownership of it eliminates the weight on his shoulders, and any sense of guilt that is misplaced. it actually is freeing to him. this behavior, having to use people, and defend that regardless of fact imprisons him. in my view.

then maybe, we can get to the underlying issues with our roles in society that actually create the problems.

100. but... i did not do that. again, when we ignore fact and make up an argument,

i cannot really be responsible for that. i can only be responsible for what i actually said.

and it is not hard for many men that do not feel a person, or woman is saying ALL men, when using the word men that gang rape women, instead of people that gang rape women. you understand there are many many men that do not take ownership and are sitting in a much more healthy position, right here and now.

105. you interpreted THIS as me saying they should take ownership on what other men say and do? really?

what would happen if a man read about gang rape and did not take ownership of it, but was merely outraged by it. that really is not so hard.

or, it should not be.

to not take ownership of it eliminates the weight on his shoulders, and any sense of guilt that is misplaced. it actually is freeing to him. this behavior, having to use people, and defend that regardless of fact imprisons him. in my view.

26. This is bullshit

On a number of levels. Gang-rape is evil shit in any culture. To do it in the name of war or religion or in this case both is so fucked up it leaves me speechless.

Unfotunetly rape as a war weapon, which is what this is all about, has far too many precedents.

Any asshole can pretend that a particular Fatwa is in line with Islamic expectations and dodma. from my limited understanding of it, This guy is a perverted, opportunistic fuckwad, and should have no right to open his disgusting mouth.

36. So Allah made the human body

Has women give birth to girls so they can be raped....cuz fundy men want to rape girls and cuz gawd sez it's okay.

al-Arifi: "Allah created life; I can torture it if I want, because I want to, and cuz Allah sez so. Let's all go rape someone that Allah created for our sick appetites! Hoo-aahh, ain't I all manly and shit?"

80. interesting. i really did not find any clarification

where the misstep or false story is. if this article wanted to prove it as false, i would think it would be clear where the falsehood is. i didnt read it. maybe i missed it. BUT... i certainly get the point of the story, hence my immediate response this is not just about saudi arabia.